No penalties for lawyer who exposed false information about voters in grand jury

A judge overseeing the prosecution of fraudulent voters in Arizona said there will be no penalties against an attorney who exposed grand jury information by filing a court document that could be seen by people other than the parties in the case.

On August 19, Thomas Jacobs, attorney for defendant Christina Bobb, filed a response that included transcripts of the grand jury proceedings and the names of the jury members. The document used grand jury transcripts to support the argument that Bobb’s prosecution was politically motivated.

Judge Bruce Cohen ordered the document sealed Tuesday after Nick Klingerman, head of the Arizona Attorney General’s criminal division, raised the issue.

In court Wednesday, Cohen said that because of the nature of electronic filings, it is easier to make mistakes in filing documents.

“I’m just going to ask everyone to keep in mind the critical nature of preserving that privacy, and we’ll leave it at that,” Cohen said during a hearing Wednesday. “I will tell you, Mr. Jacobs, that in an off-the-record discussion, no one asked for any sanctions for this, and I wasn’t considering it. I just wanted to address it, and I’ll leave it at that.”

Discussion of the grand jury material opened the third day of hearings on several motions, including requests by the defendants to dismiss the criminal charges against them.

Defense attorneys concluded their arguments for dismissal on Tuesday, and on Wednesday, the state had a chance to respond to the argument that the case was political retaliation.

In April 2024, a grand jury indicted 11 Arizona Republicans and seven senior advisers to Donald Trump on felony charges stemming from a scheme to keep him in the White House by falsely certifying that he won the state in 2020. Two defendants have resolved their cases since the indictments were unsealed. One agreed to testify on behalf of the prosecution. The other pleaded guilty.

Prosecutors refute arguments that the case is political retaliation

Attorneys for several defendants have argued that the charges should be dismissed because they violate Arizona’s anti-SLAPP statute.

SLAPP stands for “strategic lawsuit against public participation,” and the law creates a framework for cases to be quickly dismissed if a defendant can prove the case was substantially motivated by retaliation because he or she exercised a constitutional right, such as free speech.

On Wednesday, Klingerman said the defense’s argument that the Arizona Attorney General’s Office is prosecuting people for their political speech does not hold water.

“This prosecution involves nothing more than enforcing the law against those who are alleged to have committed fraud, falsifications and conspiracies to alter the outcome of a legitimate election because they were dissatisfied with the results,” Klingerman said. “Like all criminal prosecutions, it seeks to punish past behavior, educate the public and deter future attempts to do the same. If left unchecked, this can happen again.”

Klingerman said he was surprised to hear the defense argue that the First Amendment somehow allowed the defendants to engage in criminal actions “to deprive every citizen of their constitutional rights to democracy, because some people believe the 2020 election was stolen and because election lawsuits are difficult.”

“Simply put, that’s not protected speech,” Klingerman said.

Therefore, the state’s anti-SLAPP statute does not apply to this case, he said.

Klingerman used the actions of several defendants, including former Trump attorney Rudy Giuliani, to make his point.

“Mr. Giuliani had every right to hold a sham hearing at the Hilton on Nov. 30 and say that thousands of people in Arizona voted fraudulently in the election,” Klingerman said. “But what he had no right to do was make those statements with the intent to commit fraud, and that is what he is charged with.”

Bobb was not charged for being a journalist, but for her complicity in the alleged plot to overturn the election, Klingerman said.

Responding to criticism over statements Mayes made during his campaign for office that he would investigate fake voters, Klingerman said this was simply stump talk, analogous to any county attorney candidate promising to go after cartels or even the “Gilbert Goons.”

“I think common sense dictates that candidates for office should speak out against these groups of people in order to prosecute crimes because that’s what prosecutors do,” Klingerman said.

The idea put forward by defense attorneys that the prosecution targeted Republicans was also false, Klingerman argued.

“The fact is that the state asked the grand jury to consider not indicting more Republicans than the grand jury actually indicted,” he said. “The state asked the grand jury to consider not indicting Donald Trump. And that false legislative statement that the grand jury wanted to indict the legislators for? The state asked them not to indict them as well, saying, quote, ‘Let’s give them the benefit of the doubt.'”

After the hearing, Mayes echoed Klingerman’s comments in a press release and a statement on social media.

“These motions are a distraction and an attempt to divert attention from the facts of this case and muddy the waters in the public eye,” Mayes said. “Let me be clear: The allegations in this case were not politically motivated. They were the result of a thorough, lengthy, and professional investigation conducted by experienced and dedicated law enforcement officers and prosecutors.”

Mayes said the actions in question did not constitute protected speech.

“The law draws a clear line between free speech and unlawful conduct,” Mayes said. “We believe the evidence shows the defendants crossed that line.”

Attorneys will have the opportunity to file responsive briefs by Sept. 6, and Cohen will then deliberate and issue decisions on the motions before him.

Cohen thanked both the defense and prosecution for their patience and willingness to discuss their arguments in a respectful and scholarly manner amid such turbulent political times.

Got a news tip? Contact the reporter at [email protected] or 812-243-5582. Follow him on X, formerly known as Twitter, @JimmyJenkins.

Breaking

No penalties for lawyer who exposed false information about voters in grand jury

ByS. Jacob

Prosecutors refute arguments that the case is political retaliation

By S. Jacob

Related Post

Eagles legend to join ESPN broadcast for Monday Night Football

Severe weather conditions are expected in Salt Lake, Davis and Weber counties

Younghoe Koo will be a minor league kicker only during Week 2

You missed

Eagles legend to join ESPN broadcast for Monday Night Football

Severe weather conditions are expected in Salt Lake, Davis and Weber counties

Younghoe Koo will be a minor league kicker only during Week 2

Ballistic missile launched by Houthis in Yemen hits central Israel for the first time, causing panic | World News